Revista PowerPlay

I would like to introduce myself.  My name is biznow, I'm a PPMaholic, and this is my first foray into the seedy underworld of PPM Magazine. As soon as I heard there were openings for editors, I boarded my team plane and immediately flew to PPM Magazine headquarters with resume in hand. I knew the interview process would be rigorous, but had no idea it would involve a series of tests reminiscent of something from the Saw movie franchise. The competition was fierce, but in the end I cut off my arm to free myself from the chains and killed beetbout before the timer ran out. 

So here I sit, typing out my first article with one hand.  I should preface this by telling you that my articles will be purely opinion based.  If you're looking for fancy stats and numbers you won't find them here.  It's not that I don't believe in the statistics, it's just that they are witchcraft...  I'm kidding of course, make no mistake, this is a numbers driven game.  If you haven't already done so, I recommend you look back at some of the analysis by canucks357 as it can be invaluable when trying to get ahead in this game. I'm going for something different here, the ramblings of a mad man if you will.  You may agree with me, you may not, either way I'm happy to hear your opinion as well.  For my first entry I want to discuss buying players vs. buying infrastructure. Now, I know this topic has been done, but we have a lot of new managers, and for an introductory article I would like to share my views on basic game play philosophy. So on to the matter at hand:

In the PPM world there seems to be two major approaches to building a team.   There are the patient managers who painstakingly build infrastructure, and count on good pulls from their sports academies, to build their team from within.  Then there are those who take a slightly riskier approach and regularly look to the market for talent to help grow their team faster.  So which method is the best? In this article I'll quickly review some of the positives and negatives of each approach and we'll see if we can figure this out...together (everyone join hands and sing kumbaya).

When going for the complete build within approach, there's no doubt about it, there are far more pros than cons.  Getting to work on your training and regeneration facilities right away will get your players training faster, improving your entire team's core as a whole.  A good start to your HR Department will help you get the most out of your sponsorship offers.  Maintenance facilities will keep day to day costs down, and the Sports Academy will get you young players to build your team around. Having a larger capacity arena is going to bring in much better revenues if you can sell out. The benefits to this approach are plentiful and obvious, and will result in a much more stable club in the long run.  However, a longer run it will be. This route is going to require patience, as facility construction, particularly in the later levels can take a long time. In other words, expect to wait to be competitive.

So what do you do if your impatient like me and want to start winning games sooner?  You hit the market and start buying.  Picking up some better players as soon as possible will get you winning games.  Winning games will boost your overall team rating, have you finishing in stronger positions, and possibly even promoting levels.  All of which are big deals when it comes to sponsorship offers.  Call me competitive, but when I play games, I like to win, and this approach has helped me win games and make money.  Sound too good to be true?  That's because it is.   When playing the game this way your club will be far less financially stable.  Remember that in the later stages, your day to day costs such as player and staff salaries will increase substantially.  If you don't have the infrastructure to help pay these costs you will find yourself in big trouble.  My club was built with this method, and is constantly riding the edge of financial crisis. 

Both methods seem to have their advantages and disadvantages, so how do we make sense of this?  I don't know if there is any one correct answer. A lot of your decision should be based off how you play the game.  Are you a manager who logs in every now and then, and is content to wait out facility construction?  Then the slower route could be for you.  Are you a more hands on manager who likes having something to do on a daily basis? Then don't be afraid to play the market.  To tell you the truth, I think the best way to build your club probably falls somewhere in the middle.  Use the market, but do your best to buy low and sell high to help offset some of the cost of your purchases.  Get yourself off to a good start, then be content competing in lower divisions while you work on the backbone of your team, it's infrastructure.   You won't get to the top divisions as fast as a purely market driven team, but you'll still be winning games, your club will be more stable,  and far more likely to stick in the top divisions when you do get there.

I guess in the end it comes down to finding the right balance for you. Be adaptable and unafraid to try new techniques.   I would even suggest trying different methods in different sports to see what gets you the best results. What works for you may be completely different than what works for someone else.  Let us know in the comments section how you're approaching the game. Are you more like the Detroit Redwings and their methodical approach?  Or are you throwing money at free agents at a level that puts the Philly Flyers to shame?